Hello!

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Jiri Slaby [off-list ref] wrote:

On 09/06/2012 08:39 PM, Tomas Hlavacek wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Jiri Slaby [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 09/06/2012 03:17 AM, Tomas Hlavacek wrote:

quoted

@@ -2362,8 +2392,8 @@ int uart_add_one_port(struct uart_driver *drv, struct uart_port *uport)
       * Register the port whether it's detected or not.  This allows
       * setserial to be used to alter this ports parameters.
       */
-     tty_dev = tty_port_register_device(port, drv->tty_driver, uport->line,
-                     uport->dev);
+     tty_dev = tty_register_device_attr(drv->tty_driver, uport->line,
+                     uport->dev, port, tty_dev_attr_groups);

This makes me believe you have not tested the change at all?

Thanks! I can't believe I missed that. (And I actually tested that,
but I have to admit that it was not enough apparently.)

I will re-send the patch (after some additional testing and double-checking).

Ok. A couple more questions...

* why are you passing tty_port to the struct device's private data and
not uart_port proper? Is this for some future use?

I actually used the uart_port structure in older RFC versions of the
patch. Alan Cox advised to use struct tty_port because of consistency.
More precisely he said (in an e-mail from Aug 12):

I'd rather however it pointed
to the tty_port that each tty device has (or very soon will be required
to have). You can still find the uart_foo structs from that but it means
we can do the dev_set_drvdata() in a consistent manner for all tty
devices in the kernel. That in turn means we can make some of the sysfs
valid the same way.

* cannot be all those attribute structs const?

It seems that making

static const struct attribute *tty_dev_attrs[] = ...

produces warning:

drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c:2334:2: warning: initialization from
incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c:2334:2: warning: (near initialization
for ‘tty_dev_attr_group.attrs’) [enabled by default]

But others can. I am going to make them const in following patch.

* kdoc for tty_register_device_attr says that when
TTY_DRIVER_DYNAMIC_DEV is not set, tty_register_device_attr *should* not
be called. But it must not be called, otherwise it will fail and emit a
warning as a bonus, right?

Yes. In fact it does the same thing as tty_register_device() did
before itself. The _attr version is only slightly refactored and the
doc regarding the TTY_DRIVER_DYNAMIC_DEV test is the same as in old
non-_attr version.
I am not sure that I am the right person to change the doc because I
am not an author of this part of doc nor of the test in the function.

* final remark. I would prefer declaration and code be delimited by a
new line in uart_get_attr_uartclk:
<===>
+       int ret;
+
+       struct tty_port *port = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+       struct uart_state *state = container_of(port, struct uart_state,
port);
+       mutex_lock(&state->port.mutex);
<===>

Like:
<===>
  struct tty_port *port = ...;
  struct uart_state *state = ...;
  int ret;

  mutex_lock(&state->port.mutex);
<===>

Yes, it looks better. I am going to it accordingly.

Tomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html